Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!hagerman
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
In-Reply-To: abg@mars.epm.ornl.gov's message of Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:45:30 GMT
Message-ID: <HAGERMAN.93Jan29124902@rx7.ece.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@fs7.ece.cmu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
References: <58691@dime.cs.umass.edu> <C14942.n2u.2@cs.cmu.edu>
	<1993Jan25.154530.25675@ornl.gov>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 17:49:02 GMT
Lines: 24

abg@mars.epm.ornl.gov (Alex L. Bangs) writes:
>
> Frankly, I don't think the lesson here has anything to do with small
> vs. large.  I think it has to to with two things: (1) funding
> realities and (2) reliability/ redundancy.

Yup, and that's why I started this thread by trying to avoid exactly
the discussion that has ensued about the outcome of the project.  I
brought up the project *only* because I thought it may have sparked
*other* thoughts about planetary exploration.  I haven't heard any
such thoughts yet.

Here's an example.  Let's say we send something to Mars that is able
to cross ravines (long legs, can build bridges, hops, or something).
Then it is discovered that the Martians built only at the bottoms of
ravines, but we had assumed that ravines were for crossing, not for
exploring.  This leads me to wonder: what kind of exploration system
would be able to cover the most kinds of terrain?

I'd rather see this thread die than continue the previous discussion.

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
